Could a "Rabbinical Christianity" exist?
One big problem I have with Christianity is the insistence on Orthodoxy. Why should everybody be expected to believe the same way? Why should heretics be punished for questioning the Orthodoxy? Judaism is cool because it's determined by experts rather than preachers. Even among the ultra-Orthodox, Rabbis are expected to question previous interpretation of scripture and find new ways to apply old teachings to modern life.
I feel like it would be really great if Christian preachers were also expected to interpret Christianity and the teachings of Jesus on their own accord. Because historians agree that the Bible was written and compiled by multiple different people, shouldn't preachers and clerics try to find their own interpretation, rather than assuming the text is God's literal word? A "Christian Rabbi" would consider how the faith should be interpreted in the context of both Christian history and the greater theological tradition.
This would, I believe, create a more intelligent, more theological, and more productive Christianity that encourages piety and personal theology among the clerics and laypeople.
>>471480
Reformed Christianity is pretty close to what you're describing although there are some elements that aren't up for debate (the Trinity for example) but because there is no central authority (other than Scripture) like in Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy there is a lot of room for discussions.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this how Messianic Judaism works?
>>471480
Isn't that just Islam?
Only fringe American heretics in redneck backwaters try to push "God's literal word" interpretations of the bible. The major sects all have some version of the Catholic "Truth cannot contradict Truth" doctrine that allows for precisely the kind of re-interpretation you're talking about, albeit with more respect for hierarchy than you're describing.
>>471480
>Even among the ultra-Orthodox, Rabbis are expected to question previous interpretation of scripture and find new ways to apply old teachings to modern life.
This is true. However they are expected/required to do so within the confines of very specific and particular rules and prohibitions. While some wiggle room exists, it's not like you can actually reform stuff easily when it comes to direct scriptural interpretations.
Besides, the rabbinical practice is so anal it's unbelievable. You have pages and pages (if not books and books) devoted to extremely specific questions like what's the right way to eat a sausage. I don't think this is what you're aiming for, honestly.
>>471506
It's interesting how the Trinity was so fiercely debated for centuries but is now accepted by essentially every sect.
>>471516
Messianic Judaism is kind of weird. It was started as a way for Jewish converts to Christianity to "practice Christianity in a Jewish way", but these days most Messianic Jews are Christians from non-Jewish backgrounds who like wearing Tallits and celebrating Jewish holidays.
Jewish analysis no longer plays a significant role.
>>471480
There is something like that within Catholicism. It has a very rich theology, with some conflicting views even. It also has gone through many changes over time, following social changes and changing society around it as it went.
The booksmarts didn't really reach the masses, though.
>>471598
>It's interesting how the Trinity was so fiercely debated for centuries but is now accepted by essentially every sect
That's because nearly every modern sect is descended from Nicene Christianity, and the non trinitarians like the Arians are few in number.
>>472089
>and the non trinitarians like the Arians are few in number.
isn't islam essentially a non trinitarian christian sect?
>>473167
No, while Islam is essentially the Christian Doctrine reiterated, Christianity tends to necessitate the recognition of Jesus as a Divine personage.
>>471480
>Why should everybody be expected to believe the same way?
Because truth cannot contradict truth.
>Why should heretics be punished for questioning the Orthodoxy?
They're not. You're not a heretic until you start advocating a heresy IS orthodoxy
>Judaism is cool because it's determined by experts rather than preachers.
This is entirely at odds with your position against Orthodoxy. Catholicism is cool because it is determined by experts, rather then preachers.
Because of this, it has an Orthodoxy.
You want to disavow any basis of expertise, but then have experts do the interpretation?
>>473345
>Because truth cannot contradict truth
But at this point the real truth is lost.
It's not truth contradicting truth, it's two equally knowledgeable parties attempting to interpret the truth through the evidence that's survived.
>>473359
>But at this point the real truth is lost.
So what's the basis of being an expert?
>>473364
Being aware of a great deal of the available material relating to the topic, and the ability to gauge them critically.
>>473372
You don't think preachers haven't read the bible?
>>473386
What are you even talking about?
The point is that the bible isn't enough to determine what is and what isn't the truth.
The 100% true teachings of Jesus are lost, so it's up to the experts, both religious and secular, to reconstruct them as best as they can.
Since it's impossible to know the real truth, multiple interpretations can exist and not be used to prove each other wrong as long as both are reconstructed in communion with the sources available.
>>473425
>The point is that the bible isn't enough to determine what is and what isn't the truth.
So why would reading the available material relating to the topic help one acquire truth? Why has literally no human being done this before?
>Since it's impossible to know the real truth, multiple interpretations can exist and not be used to prove each other wrong as long as both are reconstructed in communion with the sources available.
So what's the point of being an expert, if lack of expertise cannot lead to error?
>>473486
>So why would reading the available material relating to the topic help one acquire truth
Because being knowledgeable of the sources of a past series of events help you be able to understand them better as they may have happened.
>So what's the point of being an expert, if lack of expertise cannot lead to error
Lack of expertise can lead to error. Being an expert helps you reconstruct an event as it probably happened, even if it isn't the real truth as it happened exactly.
Being ignorant of the sources gets you people claiming that Jesus hates the gays and shit that's not in the bible.
>>473486
>Being an expert helps you reconstruct an event as it probably happened, even if it isn't the real truth as it happened exactly.
That's fucking useless. If I reconstructed German History as it probably happened, WWII wouldn't be in there.
>Lack of expertise can lead to error.
Multiple interpretations can exist and not be used to prove each other wrong as long as both are reconstructed in communion with the sources available.
If you read the bible, and come to an interpretation about it, you can't be proven wrong about it.
>>473549
>f you read the bible, and come to an interpretation about it, you can't be proven wrong about it
Yes you can, as long as that interpretation doesn't conflict with available sources.
One can disprove Creationism because we know the Earth is older than 10,000 years old.
>>473331
Gnosticism, but Islam is a re-evaluation of the interpretation of the message of Christ.
The contention point of Islam is trinitarian doctrine. In a sense >>473167 this guy is right. Islam claims Jesus never claimed divine personage and taught us to believe only in God and that man warped his message for their own purposes (I.E. The Roman Empire / council of Nicea).
>>473555
>Yes you can, as long as that interpretation doesn't conflict with available sources.
You're not even being coherent in your reflexively negative responses.
You're saying I can disprove a position so long as it doesn't contradict the available sources?
So if it DOES contradict available sources, it can't be shown to be wrong.
>One can disprove Creationism because we know the Earth is older than 10,000 years old.
This is contrary to your position that the truth about God is no longer known.
>"Since it's impossible to know the real truth"
Since it's impossible to know the real truth, it's impossible to know whether or not God created the world 10,000 years ago.
>>471480
"I am one of a few ways, one of a few truths, and one of a few lives. But I respect your life choices."
#thingsjesusneversaid
>>471480
It did before Saul.
Why would we want to interpret the teachings of Christ any way but exactly the way Christ wanted us to?
Orthodox Christianity is probably the only pre-modernist way of thought in the West that isn't distorted by modernism conceptions, because Orthodox Christianity isn't about simply preserving Christianity, it's about preserving Christianity with the original interpretation of Christianity. We aren't just talking about keeping the core and then seeing what it means to us today, we want to keep the core and what it meant to the original Christians. Keeping this preserved is extremely difficult, because people in the last can't make carbon copies of their thoughts, impressions and emotions. That we can keep this preserved is a miracle. We know we have, because the Eastern Orthodox Church was separated from the Oriental Orthodox Church (includes Coptics) for 1,600, and we found that Christianity still means the exact same thing to both of us over all this time, and that the debate over Christ's nature was purely semantics, that is why were are on the doorstep of reunification. Can you fathom what a miracle that is? To have two institutions with the same worldview, separated for 1,600 years, and then come back together and find the worldview matches exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V27RKwOoQbY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi8Q2Dy7Iyk
>>474462
But what of Papal Primacy?
>>474605
Papal Primacy is orthodox. Papal supremacy is not.
>>474605
Saul destroyed it during the Jerusalem council
